1/ The SCOTUS decision in favor of the "religious freedom" to gather in large groups despite the pandemic is part of a larger effort to elevate so called religious liberty above all other freedoms, but not in the way most agree with...

2/ Most everyone would agree that people's right to worship as they see fit should be protected, to believe as they wish, free from persecution, etc. That is not what this is, or what other religious liberty cases are about...
3/ These cases are about elevating the rights of persons claiming to be acting on the basis of religious belief, to engage in activity that injures others, without consequence. So here it means the right to worship in large groups even if it endangers public health...
4/ In other cases it means the right to discriminate against customers if you have a 'religious objection' to their sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. And what's especially disturbing is the real endgame, which few talk about...
5/ This is really about gutting civil rights protections. If you ask virtually any right wing conservative jurist, or commentator or politician, they will admit, if you push, that they don't think civil rights law should ever have applied to private businesses...
6/ They think the civil rights act of 1964, one of the shining achievements of the movement, was wrong to include such anti-discrimination restrictions in the private sector. They think the property rights of businesses are more important than human dignity...
7/ For a half century+ they have tried to figure out a way to roll back those protections without sounding like racist assholes in the process. Saying you think lunch counters should have been able to stay segregated after all is a bad look in the eyes of decent people...
8/ Now, under the guise of "religious liberty" they are opening the door for such rollbacks. Once you allow people to discriminate in the provision of commerce in the name of religious freedom you open the door to diminished anti-discrimination protections...
9/ People can begin to argue that their religious beliefs against interracial relationships or simply religiously-inspired belief in racial separation (Tower of Babel story bullshit) compels them to discriminate against blacks, Latinx folk, etc...
10/ And whether or not you even hold those beliefs, all you have to do is say you believe that crap and this court would likely say OK bc "muh religious freedoms" are under attack...
11/ not to mention, once you carve out exceptions to civil rights law for religion, you shift the cultural expectations so that the right NOT to be discriminated against is now deemed less important than the right TO discriminate...
12/ Once this mentality is accepted it becomes easy to envision other carve outs in civil rights jurisprudence: limiting enforcement of the law against businesses bc of a more restrictive reading of commerce clause, or over-application of takings clause in the 5th Amendment...
13/ Ultimately this turns on its head the old concept of "my rights end where yours begin..." Instead, the court's recent religious liberty jurisprudence says "my rights -- if I cloak them in the Bible and my reading of it -- take precedence over everything else"...
14/ In the name of God, I can basically do anything to you I wish: deny you a job, refuse you as a customer in my business, even endanger your health so I can gather to sing Hosannahs to the Lord bc I think my scripture commands such gatherings...
15/ And there is nothing you can do about it. It makes religious rights the ultimate rights, which trump (no pun intended) all others. That is neither the framers' intent (for those who care about such things), nor philosophically defensible. It is the move of zealots...

More from Politics

Handy guide for Dominic Raab and other Brexiteers, and for anyone keen to replace our EU trade with trade with the rest of the world on WTO terms...


You can't magic away the vast distances involved. Clue: we fly in only 1/192th of our trade compared to the amount that arrives via sea


But even if you invented a teleporter tomorrow, WTO terms are so bad, so stacked against us, that a no-deal Brexit will be a total economic disaster


And while the Brexiteers fantasise, real jobs are being lost, investments are drying up, companies are moving assets to the EU27 or redomiciling. All already happened and happening right now, not in some mythical


Of course, there are many, many myths that Brexiteers perpetuate that are total fiction. You've seen a couple of them already. The thread below busts a whole lot

You May Also Like

1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.